State v. Vice
| Decision Date | 18 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 19455,19455 |
| Citation | 190 S.E.2d 510,259 S.C. 30 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Lawrence VICE, Jr., Appellant. |
Harvey M., spar, and Leonard L. Long, Jr., of Long & Townsend, Charleston, for appellant.
Solicitor Robert B. Wallace, and Asst. Solicitor A. Arthur Rosenblum, Charleston, for respondent.
Appellant, Lawrence Vice, Jr., was convicted of voluntary manslaughter under an indictment charging him with the murder of one Robert Farrow, and received a sentence of twenty (20) years. It is argued in this appeal that the trial judge erred (1) in admitting testimony relative to blood spots found in appellant's apartment and pictures taken therein during an entry by the officers without a search warrant; (2) in admitting in evidence a recording of appellant's voice; and (3) in refusing a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty.
Robert Farrow, a colored male, was found dead, lying in the yard, near the porch of the house where he rented a room, at 76 George Street, in Charleston, South Carolina. He was fully clothed and was saturated with blood over his chest and down his left leg. The body was discovered by the newspaper delivery boy about 7:15 a.m., Sunday, March 16, 1969, and police arrived at the scene about 7:25 a.m.
As the result of an autopsy, it was determined that death occurred between midnight and six o'clock, a.m. on March 16 1969, from four stab wounds to the chest, one of which entered the heart.
The deceased lived in a room on the first floor of a two story house, where several others rented rooms or apartments. Appellant lived on the second floor. The investigating officers were able to locate all of the occupants of the building, except appellant, who disappeared and was not located until he was surrendered to the police by his attorney on March 18, 1969, two days after the body of the deceased was found.
Appellant made no statements concerning the crime and did not testify at the trial. There were no eye witnesses and the State relied largely upon circumstantial evidence to prove the charge. Since one of the issues involves the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, we must view the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident in the light most favorable to the State. This rule governs our review of the testimony.
The room of the deceased opened onto a porch, from which a stairway led to the second floor. During the night of March 15, 1969, the deceased, who was intoxicated, got into an argument with an adjacent roomer. Shortly thereafter, the deceased was heard arguing and tussling with someone near the porch steps. A witness stated that a voice, which sounded like that of appellant, said 'he was going upstairs and coming back.' This witness then heard the sound of someone going up the stairs to the second floor and coming down, followed by more tussling, and then silence. The body of the deceased was found the next morning lying on the ground, near the porch where the witness had heard the argument and tussling the night before.
On March 16th, at about 1:21 a.m., an anonymous telephone call was received at police headquarters. The voice was described as that of a colored male and reported: 'I'm down at 76 George Street, downstairs, and a man has been seriously crushed in the damned stomach.' This call was automatically recorded. The report was investigated by the police shortly thereafter but no body was found. An officer, who know appellant, testified that, in his opinion, the voice recorded in the anonymous phone call was that of appellant.
When the officers were subsequently called to the scene, they found blood on the ground, and on the porch near the door to deceased's room. The deceased was crippled and used a walking cane. His hat, walking cane, and a medallion showing 'praying hands' were found on the porch near a spot of blood. In addition, blood was found on the stairway leading to the second floor. A small neck chain was also found on the stairway.
There was a screen door at the head of the stairway, leading into a hallway from which only the rooms of appellant and his landlady could be entered. The screen door was locked from the outside with a hasp and padlock. Blod was found on this hasp and lock. Upon entering the hallway, blood spots were found just outside the door to appellant's room. His room was locked from the outside by means of a hasp and padlock, to which only appellant and the landlady had keys.
Appellant customarily wore a neck chain with a 'praying hands' medallion, and was seen wearing the medallion about three weeks prior to the present incident, at which time he also had a four inch pocket knife in his possession. The medallion was similar to the one found at the scene of the crime.
When appellant was surrendered to the police, he was not wearing the chain and medallion; blood was found on keys taken from his person; and there was a bruise on his face and a scratch on his arm which had scabbed over.
Scrapings from under the fingernails of the right hand of the deceased revealed the presence of human blood, but insufficient in quantity to be typed. Hair samples from the appellant and the deceased were found to be Negro in origin, but could not be otherwise identified.
Blood samples were taken from the deceased; from the blood spots on the porch, stairway, hallway, and keys taken from appellant; and from appellant's body. All of the blood was found to be human blood, type O.
Appellant tried to get his landlady to testify at his trial that she sent him downstairs the night of the incident to 'quiet some quarrel,' but she refused to do so.
When the officers traced the blood spots from the body of the deceased to the door of appellant's locked room, they procured the assistance of appellant's landlady who unlocked the door. Upon gaining entrance, blood spots were also found in appellant's room. Scrapings were taken from these blood spots and pictures were made of the room, which were later admitted in evidence over appellant's objection. No search warrant was obtained by the officers before entering and appellant contends that the evidence obtained as a result of this search of his room was inadmissible. This presents the first issue for determination.
The evidence procured from the room of appellant was obtained as the result of an unlawful search and was therefore inadmissible. The search was clearly not incident to an arrest and the State does not now rely upon that theory. Rather, the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. State, 655
...additionally, since the Taylor decision, South Carolina has recognized Wade and upheld the introduction of voice tapes. State v. Vice, 259 S.C. 30, 190 S.E.2d 510 (1972). We are persuaded that voice exemplars, taken, as here, under proper order of court, based upon probable cause, do not in......
-
People v. Rogers
...1298 (defendant ordered to speak while in lineup--not so suggestive as to give rise to irreparable misidentification); State v. Vice, 259 S.C. 30, 190 S.E.2d 510 (requirement that defendant speak into telephone so that his voice could be recorded for identification purposes did not violate ......
-
State v. Olderman
...defendant had refused to submit. Both recordings were played to the jury for their aural comparison for identification. State v. Vice (1972), 259 S.C. 30, 190 S.E.2d 510. Appellant's argument of a denial of his privilege against self-incrimination is therefore without Appellant further argu......
-
West v. Com., Record No. 1486-08-1.
...delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened `the destruction of evidence'"); contrast State v. Vice, 259 S.C. 30, 190 S.E.2d 510, 512 (S.C. 1972) (holding that, as the evidence proved Vice was not in his rented room, "[t]here was simply no circumstance upon whic......